The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-09-01
No Habeas Corpus for Hamilton
Chief Justice Cooper Decision In
the Famous Cas0 ler dered.
He Holds Chaucellor PeytOa's Pee
iusal Bars S.cand Writ.
Hamliton's AitOrois tiled Replica.
tiOue With New Na,ter.
These IA Bo argued lytOre the IA.
prcma Sustice TUds8 Action
Oi the COu,se for
the state.
lspsmlL 10 rl.h lPreA..L

'sgScitL ~ TIN IPrrks.I
JACKSON. Mira, 40 MS 81. Tho
hearing Of tho Hamilton Eubanks case wac
rs,umed boiore Chief Justice Cooper at $3.50
o'clock ihis porbing. II beiag known that
the question Of res adj djidicats would be
decided on the convSnins Of the court. quite
u crowd of anxio IS and eager spectators wore
present 10 hear the dOesion Judse Cooper,
on assuming the bench, proceeded at obce 10
siye hid opinion orLly. lie decided ~ to
the thrye roin,s contondod fer by rel tors.
firat-that tho statute prohibiting a second
wri, before the drst is rcvIr'ed h unconstI-
tuu,nal. Stc)nd- that the trial before
Chancellor peyson was trial on the writ Of
habsas corpus 10 all -o'pee,s as oontsu-
plated by Law. Third d-thAt tho indictments
do Mt remove the bart a seoo' writ
the same not changing the legal tslsit OF
The motion oi rolator' 20 strike
out certain parts Of the return present
ins the question OF res UudicatA Was
therefore o Orrulod. iounfti y telaters
a,ked Tor imo prepare itphcations to Tie
return on the writ.
A foo,ss was then tAkon until o clock
y. M, at which time the court recon yoned.
Council for relatcts 6led rephea,ions 10 ths
the sAmo questions included In the motion
10 ttrike uut, which was oycrruled, as before
stated They also flied tsv additional tsp1i-
cations, ai ioilOwti
oou' at which the ihdio mcnt was uiessntcd
there was al intense popular excitement OK
istins against these 0eiendaut, ohueed
W III mutdor, In suth manner aud q such
ertent that at tho Iuge term, lss1 OF tho said
Circuit Court, after the case ss.ihst ihste
respon denup was called for trial, the District
Attorney, acting TO- the staten Piled 10 aud
moved the court Tor change ot
venue, upon an ahidaVit BY bin That
by. reason of undue preiudice In the
n, DEFENDANTS could obtain q fair aud i'm
sArtlal rial" Ia this dstfict, that respond
ents objected TO the said change % venue
''boo uso he indictu.nt was ,pToyuiet
from a Graz a Jury Of the fiist a strict %
lindt county, with full knowiedse 81 the
prosecutor and Uisuict At,oruo Of the ex-
i,taHcs "a the popular pt,iudics oump ainyd
II, ani no steps were taken N tTsmtue tho
jury iof favor, aud because, unde the Cone
stiiutioh aud laws oi toe tate, the District
Atturney had no authority 60 move for a
chalge fvenus in bth II oi the deiondanu.
that the COu took proof, ana thofoup0n on
tered an Ui der 20 the gh'ci tha ~ reason
oi undue prejudice In the public mind.
neither the hlae nor thi deiobdants can
have affair aud impartial trial In tho said
First district, and therefore ordered
that the said motion be ranted
ior trisl 10 Raslib coSp y. VII eh vas oelS;
that unqer And bocaute Of tho procees inn
| aforesaid def ndants have been deprived of
the conslituuogal fisht g. = speedy Trial in
sb,s6 a. ALLEGED ass,s % va eemmit,sa.
hsc0nd. III 4 presently after tho iliing of
ssid r. b. 0smb 81 J., u 0amb 81. his
|. .ther, made afidsvii beinro q Justice Of
Ho P.A' chasing these ,s1,sss rS.rSps'.,s .Is d 5
lisr with the murder Of his soni that res-
pvbdsnu we're kftclbd and the Que incaf.
oefat aud he other klp ~ custody and
guFd At his residence until ho uas CON
lur, that ever since the sth Of May lat ,hsy
have bsen ciHhsed and wholly uasbls 10 pre-
pare adequately for their defsnsei
that ihty we're compelled 10 foly
upeu their. friends Tor procuring 70 umony
Trend a dsd b, the popular prejudice
against fespondtnu, had access to Wit
hesses, aud a'iualy summoned aud put
under the role witnesses OF the Nli grhose
testimony was favofahs' 20 Isspondsnt and
preventing fospondents' counsel ant irsnds
from hav NJ access o. them, snd after the
l. III diich rsed said vltnesiei without their
hAsins te hed that psi dlns III hsfing %
std habeas corpus bfuceedinEs Ief fpondelu
sndo avofe1 ~ ecurs tho abundance % one
IhomAs HARDY, m.teriAl witness In their
behalf whn bad tailed 10 fespotd 20 the
fubpona isfued sgainTt him, aud sha, 10
avoid an attachment, lsfl tho stAtsJ that the
biate, on the application OF tefpoudebts, re-
fused 20 allow prooi ne n that sal Hardy
would testiiy, and fespon donts we're COM
PEELED g. sab mt ih.if ease sithout bic tesii-
mony upon the uviden sdauood bsi9fe the
thanceiloTg that since the hesfin. before
the chancellor fcspondents, ~ etua-
ordinary diligence, have Htoertsined and
found new aud rItfemrly impof ant owl
denco IN their bohalfui eye witnesses te the
Killing, uho will tIonafaio respondents
from ali biame touching the samo, and Who
will iully and satisinetoiily erp ain 20 rte!
doubt and dlliculty ur.a'inH ~ he cause,
snd which, q he iaid heafipg belote the
chancei OF, u was Important 10 eIplalu or
remover that several Of said w.t4e etfes lave
within tho psft tuo ~ three ueoks, tor the
hftt time, ditclnsnd the knowlo1re thty pos.
sffed. and that, BY reason q the ehclNd
and highiy pfsi siudietd state Of fselitg exist
inH In the said district and county adverse
70 70 pof dents. they hsd uutil then With
Council for the State tled . motion 10
strike out sarh aud all 0t said rcplicalions,
lhe state also hled a motion 10 strike out
physical condition of J, y, Hamilton. for
The usson that. " true, u IL not tufhoisnt
TIE couft, Al ths request of counsel Tor
fslatofa, adjourned until y o'clock tomOr-
Tos morning, AZ which time tho several
FsplioatiQhs and mosions above stated VIII
1.-THE motion 10 strike on, the rspllcations
fails A. 10 either one of tham the case VIII
then be- heard on its merits.